Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Dissent (Brennan w/Marshall):
Hudson v. Michigan (2006)
Relevant Case Facts: Michigan police obtained a warrant to search Hudson’s house for drugs and
firearms. They arrived and knocked on his door, but only waited 3-5 seconds before entering the
home. Upon searching, they found cocaine rocks and a loaded gun. Hudson’s attorney argued
that this evidence should be suppressed at trial because the police failed to comply with the
traditional “knock and announce” rule which requires police to wait a reasonable amount of time
before entering after they knock on a door.
Legal Question: Is the exclusionary rule appropriate for violation of the knock and announce
requirement?
Reasoning:
Dissents/Concurrences:
Concurring in part and in the judgment (Kennedy):
Dissenting (Breyer, with Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg):
Herring vs. United States (2009)
Relevant Case Facts:
On July 7th, 2004, Investigator Mark Anderson learned that Bennie Dean Herring was at the
Coffee County Alabama Sherriff’s Department to claim possessions from an impounded truck.
Anderson, knowing that Herring had a history of criminal activity, ran a search of the county
database for any outstanding arrest warrants. After the warrant clerk found none, he requested
that she contact neighboring Dale County. Dale County reported that Herring had an outstanding
warrant for failure to appear for a criminal drug charge and that they would fax the warrant over
for confirmation. Anderson subsequently arrested Herring and searched his person and his
vehicle. The search revealed methamphetamine in Herring’s pocket and a pistol (which the
convicted felon was prohibited from possessing) in his truck.
While the arrest and the search were taking place, Dale County called the Coffee County
Sherriff’s department to tell them that they had made a mistake. The warrant for Herring’s arrest
had been cancelled five months earlier. Regardless, Herring was charged with violations of
federal drug and weapons laws as a result of the search. His attorney moved that the evidence be
suppressed because it had been discovered during an illegal arrest and thus, an illegal search. The
district and appeals courts ruled that the arresting officer had done nothing illegal, citing the
good faith exception of the exclusionary rule. Herring appealed and the Court granted certiorari.
Legal Question: Does the exclusionary rule which suppresses evidence obtained as a result of a
Fourth Amendment violation apply to evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith?
Reasoning:
4. Although not all recordkeeping errors are immune from the exclusionary rule, the error here
was neither systematic not reckless and thus could not be deterred by the exclusionary rule.
Dissenting (Ginsburg):
Dissenting (Breyer):
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Relevant Case Facts:
Escobedo was arrested for the murder of his brother-in-law. The police attempted to interrogate
him, but Escobedo made no statement and was released. A week later, DiGerlando, in custody
for the same crime, told the police that Escobedo committed the crime. This time the police
arrested Escobedo and his sister. At the police station Escobedo asked to see his attorney, but
the police refused. His attorney came to the station, and repeatedly asked to see his client, but he
was denied access. Instead, the police questioned Escobedo for fourteen and a half hours, until
he made damaging statements. He was found guilty of murder.
Legal Question: Does the refusal by police to allow petitioner to consult with his lawyer during
interrogation constitute a denial of the assistance of counsel in violation of the 6th Amendment?
Reasoning:
Dissent (White, Clark, and Stewart):
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Relevant Case Facts:
Miranda allegedly kidnapped and raped a young woman outside of Phoenix, AZ. Ten days later
the police arrested him and interrogated him. After two hours of questioning Miranda confessed ,
and there was no evidence of police misbehavior during the interrogation, and at no point did
Miranda request an attorney.
Legal Question: Are statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom admissible in court?
Reasoning:
Dissent (White, Harlan, and Stewart):
CUT CASE IT HAS BEEN DELETED
Dickerson v. U.S. (2000)
Relevant Case Facts:
After Miranda was decided, Congress passed a law to blunt its effect. The law stated that any
confession shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given. In short, confessions are
admissible even if Miranda warnings are not given. The justice department never made use of
the law because it thought it was unconstitutional. However, in 1999 it was resurrected by the 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals. Dickerson was picked up and questioned about a robbery, without the
issuance of Miranda warnings. There was also a dispute whether he was apprised of these
warnings before a second interview. The statements led officers to search his apartment, and
additional evidence was seized.
Legal Question: May Congress overturn Miranda v. Arizona, a constitutional decision, with a
statute that limits this decision’s applicability?
Reasoning:
Dissent (Scalia and Thomas):
Miranda’s progeny have undermined its doctrinal underpinnings, denying it constitutional
authority. Today’s judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching to the
very Cheops’ Pyramid of judicial arrogance. In imposing a court made code on the states, the
original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the constitution. Today’s decision
does not pretend that it is – and yet still asserts the right to impost it against the will of the
people’s representatives in Congress.
Missouri v. Seibert (2004)
Relevant Case Facts: Seibert had a 12 year old son, Jonathan, with cerebral palsy. When he died
in his sleep, Seibert feared she would be charged with neglect because Jonathan had a bad case
of bedsores. Seibert and her two other sons devised a plan to conceal the facts. Specifically, they
decided to burn their mobile home so it appeared Jonathan died in the blaze. To guard against
charges that Jonathan had been left unattended, she also left Donald Rector (a mentally ill
teenager living with the family) in the mobile home. He died in the fire. An officer took Seibert
into custody but did not provide her with Miranda warnings. He interrogated her for 40 minutes,
during which time she made incriminating statements. She was then given her Miranda warning,
and questioned again (this time on tape). She repeated the incriminating statements and was
ultimately charged with first degree murder.
Legal Question: Is a statement made prior to Miranda warnings, and then repeated after the
Miranda warning was given, admissible in Court?
Reasoning:
